Serious Thread #1: Porn Chic

I honestly don't recall seeing any arty early porn (probably before my time), but I'm sure it probably started out that way. Of course now there is plenty of stuff that tries self-consciously to be artful, high production values, etc. I see where your point is more about the methods of procurement and spaces in which it is consumed. I guess I would assume anyone still interested in porn as a form, genre, whatever, would still probably rent full-length tapes as entire movies aren't generally easily obtained through the 'net (easily, that is). Anyone just looking to "get off"... yeah it's become much more immediate and probably therefore acceptable.

I dunno. Jeff Koons to thread?

(ps i do not in fact particularly want to defend this position)

(great early feminist essay on porn by ellen willis, reviewing deep throat)

But what are they going to say, "Yes, I feel quite exploited. It is very demeaning work, but, you know, a person has to eat" ?

The thing is, while porn is being mainstreamed, it's been getting worse and worse

You mean that the production values on the internet stuff are low. The porn isn't necessarily "worse"; I mean it all serves one purpose anyway. Some people simply enjoy and prefer the gonzo porn. For others, higher budget options are still available, e.g. http://www.andrewblake.com/

i don't even think i'd like to see porn which DID cater to my feminist sensibilities, because it would still be a patronising waste of money, tho i guess i might find it's proliferation empowering. i'm not sure. theres two ways about it. feminist porn vs commercialisation of feminist desire??!!

ps where can i find this essay, mark? was it contemporary with the movie, or does it take into account how linda lovelace came to feel about her work?

have you read any ellen willis di, i think you'd like her if not

one of her other collections is called "no more nice girls" !!

Mentally stripped human beings do not compare to real images of actual naked human beings (it's an authenticity thing, y'see- porn rockism.)

I think that the rise of the Internet, and the availibilty of more varied porn, is fascinating. I see it as being an artistic/self-expression thing, in many cases. (I've a girl-friend who runs her own bondage site - she drags in friends/bondage junkies, lets them tie her for free, then photos are taken and posted to her "pay-to-view" site. And as she's an exhibitionist, she gets her rocks off, and as an artist, she creates and manipulates visual elements.)

Personally, when I'm looking for pornographic images, I want the odder the better sort of thing - I want to know all of the kinks available out there - I want to know what drives others (it's kinda like the desire to break into house and just dig through personal items to see someone's secrets) - and I want to see if there are things out there that I've not thought of and that I want to explore.

In general, I am turned-off by the high-end images. I don't want fuzzy photos and women with implants and men with 10" penis'. I want to see the normal people - that woman walking down the street, that man ahead of you in line at the grocery - I like the thought of normal people having fun and playing around and having sex. Kind of makes people moe endearing, in my mind (and I am not a fan of the human species, as a rule). I like the scars and imperfections of the bodies, for whatever reason - the more "realistic" the more arousing I find it. This is true for porn on the Internet, in flicks, and in magazines.

Conversely, the opposite is true for written pornography. (And I've found that I tend to be more stimulated by the images created by the words as opposed to those on a computer screen or on the telly.) If I am reading porn, then the author better be a good story-teller, have a decent vocabulary, good imagination, and a skilled editor. If I am reading something and keep making editorial notes, then the text is not doing the job for me. However, I do want the text to be explicit with the slang and offensive words and taboo subjects being explored in great detail (none of those euphamisims for me, thank you very much!), while still being well-edited and readable.

So I'm snooty about textual information and low-brow with the visuals. I wonder why.

Maybe my imagination is flawed, but especially when I am looking for that "quick" stimulant, I find that I can usually get going faster with some blatant porn as opposed to a long, drawn-out, beautiful fantasy. Maybe I just need to devleop some fantasies that are swiftly arousing.

A weaker, more peverted man might find delight in such comments.... pass me an open window

dont recall saying that my dear old thing, but in a more honest moment I might have to admit to the odd weakness myself. .

D'you consider the very concept of heterosexual male-orientated porn degrading for women? Because imo there is a wide variety of attitudes towards women in even mainstream porn today (from the little I've seen- I hardly ever watch porn, tho I do watch softcore flicks which have a pretense to being something more than an excuse for sex scenes but quite obviously aren't, you know the kind), and while the overwhelming majority of it is quite degrading for women, I wouldn't go as far as saying that *all* of it is...

I definitely don't like Porn chic though. People should accept their fantasies, but they sure ain't some kind of accomplishment.

i just KNEW someone would say that. OF COURSE NOT. its the way its so damm over-riding. i mean the fact that the thread was called porn chic, when only heterosexual male porn was meant, pretty much says it all.

So ,what if porn makers exploit other non-P.C. fantasies? Racist ones? Classist ones? Violent ones? Those fantasies aren't so attractive all of a sudden. That's because any general acceptance of degrading words images and ideas about a particular set of people can and DOES affect other people of that group negatively - and that includes people other than those directly involved in the making of the degrading material. In the most literal sense, it's the acceptance of these ideas about them that harms them - not the material itself - but if the ideas are perpetuated by the the material...? Most reasonable people, even those that would support the right of such things to exist, would never then endorse these things in themselves, and would never support ideas they don't believe in by consuming material that perpetuates them. In other words, they don't approve.

So my big question is - why then are we always being pressured to accept the idea that exploiting the non-P.C. fantasy degradation of an entire gender set instead is somehow different; that it's much more harmless to the people that are associated with those being degraded, but are not directly involved? If you don't approve of this, that you're TOO P.C., even somehow uptight. Is it really being "uptight" to disapprove of and resist the idea of people harmed just for someone else's pleasure? The lines may be more blurry, but I still think they are there. The ease with which so many are still willing to cross them is troubling. The most complicating factor of course being the fact that people cross from both sides of the line, the confusion coming when people fail/refuse to see that this co-operation or "endorsement" does at least an equivalent amount of harm.

(here goes)

I'm genuinely saying thanks. I think a lot of the "degradation" in most porn is, if existent, subconscious. But you're definitely OTM re: any seriously intentionally degrading porn.

everybody one, two, three, "women who criticize het male porn are DWORKINISTS!!"

Well, you could easily make a case that GTA and a lot of other video games so this for violence. I enjoy killing people in them but I don't *think* it's wrong.

The operative word here being "people". If there were video games specifically about killing women, it'd be a diferent thing tho, wouldn't it? Misanthropy is more acceptable because it doesn't target anyone in particular, it's just rotten bad feeling in general and we all have that.

So where to start...hmmm...okay, about degredation and stuff. It's odd, but while I get off on humiliating submissives of all genders, I don't necessarily get off on degredation (and there is a difference betwixt the two). Basically, the closer emotionally I am to the person I am humiliating, the less humiliating I can be without feelings of guilt arising (regardless of willingness on their side). But give me some poor idiot who rubs me the wrong way and I've no problem wiping the floor with their degraded little butt (sometimes literally).

But my basic feeling about porn is that it is far from being degrading to men or women, UNLESS the participants are unwilling (both those being recorded and those doing the viewing). I think it's unfair to talk about men getting off on the degredation of women, when some women get off on degrading other women and on degrading men. Also, I tend to think of the women who choose (key word there) to work in the sex industry as having an amazing amount of power over the men who pay for her time, whether as a prostitute, a stripper, a porn queen, or whatever. The sad fact (and a wee bit of a generalization, so don't yell at me too loudly) is that a skilled woman can easily entice, enthrall, seduce, and then use and discard most males, simply working through the man's sexual drives. (I'm not saying this doesn't happen to women, but that it's more rare and it seems that the motives for the women seem to be based more around the ideas of security and stability). Basically, I see the women as being completely in control and manipulating the purveyors of their particular schtick.

Another note about degredation - much of that depends on one's point of view. Is some woman getting off on the idea that men are paying to see her masturbate being degraded? Or are the men being degraded? Or is this just one more avenue of sexual expression and desire? I agree that when someone is an unwilling participant in ANYTHING (not just porn), then the situation needs to be remedied. But it's foolish to assume that everyone in the porn industry has somehow been lured into the life, are being taken advantage of, are being broken down emotionally, and so forth.

Back to getting off on degredation, for a moment. Once I was interviewing a male for a housecleaning position (er, in the leather sense, it that he'd be cleaning nude and so forth) and he said that he needed to be degreaded - he needed to be told that he was w worthless worm, a pathetic asshole, so low he wasn't fit to ever be touched affectionatly by me and so forth. In fantasy, that sounded like one hell of a power trip - but the more I thought about it, the more I realized that I couldn't, day in and day out, say such things - at some point I'd likely come to believe what I was saying, and I don't think I'd like that person I would become. But that doesn't mean his desires were wrong - I directed him to another top and they're still happy after several years - his kink met-up with hers. Sheesh - I think I'm off topic again.

Okay - back to topic - I will concede that some in the porn industry are being used and are unwilling or coerced (spelling? I know that's not correct) participants. But I think that the vast amount of porn is not degrading unless the person who is making the porn (the model/actor/actress/whatever you want to call them) thinks of themselves as being degraded. Who are we, the people who are not the subjects/actresses, to tell some other woman that she cannot do with her body what she wants, just because we perceive it as being degrading? That's a step back for female rights (and human rights, too). I always thought that the purpose of the feminist movement was/is to free women to make their own decisions about their lives - like a woman can now CHOOSE to work or CHOOSE to stay at home or CHOOSE to think porn is icky or CHOOSE to actively participate in making porn. It's her life, for pete's sake - let her live it as she will. (Though I will also acknowledge that not every woman is in a situation to make these choices, because of familial constraints, finances, and so forth.)

And on to a slightly different topic - are people against male het porn (basically women being photographed in "nasty" positions) only? What about lesbian porn? Gay porn? Swingers? Fetishists? Are all of the participants in these genres also being degraded? Are those who seek out such images being degraded because that's what they want to view? Why do we have to judge other's for their desires and what they choose to do, because we don't approve of/understand the arousal factor of that particular kink? There's this weird think that happens sometimes in the leather community, where you will hear one person putting down another for their kink (basically a "My kink is okay and should be accepted, yours is wrong and should not be allowed" attitude). I may not understand most kinks, and some I find personally repulsive, but who am I to say that any kink other than what tickles my fancy at the moment is somehow wrong? (Also, there's the intersting fact that everyone's sexual tastes and desires are continually evolving, and who is to say that the kink you're slamming today will not be what gets your blood-flowing tomorrow?)

Kim raised an interesting and vaid point regarding other controversial topics, such as racist and violent porn. I will say, again, that one needs to look at the willing participants. One also has to look at the idea that porn is fantasy, plain and simple - these are actors and actresses - they are consenting - the people perusing the porn are also consenting. While I may not get off on racist or violent porn, and may in fact find the ideas of it to be repelling, I do not want to curtail it being made - they've as much right to market their kinks as I have to market mine. Once we start sanctioning some things as being "acceptable" to fantasize about and mark others as being "unacceptable" and therefore forbidden, we've started down a scary path - it's like saying that some books shouldn't be read because of their content. Bullshit.

Of course, if one buys into the idea that porn leads to violence against women (like aggressive lyrics lead to violence in teens and so forth), then I can understand the desire to restrict content. However, by agreeing to such an idea, all personal responsibility for one's behaior is alleviated - after all, I can claim that I was driven to rape some man because I read or watched "Deliverance." The very idea is absurd. Porn does not lead to violence toward women, or toward men. It does not increase rape and child molestation. It may make some people uncomfortable, but ehre are some very mainstream practices that make me uncomfortable.

If we live in a world of adults, who are fully capable of making decisions and accepting the responsibility for those actions resulting from the decisions, then we have to allow those people to make the decisions about what they want to do with their lives, their bodies, and their free-time. If I don't like what they do, I don't have to participate, plain and simple. S long as it's not being crammed down anyone's throats, and no-one is being forced or coerced into participating in porn, then there is nothing wrong with the industry, so far as I can see.
Sorry for the length of this rant :)

That's a pretty individual call though, not every person viewing another naked person is going to feel superior to them.

This is made even more tricky by the fact that sex invites/requires some assertiveness and aggressiveness.

I'm not sure I buy the whole empowered prostitute angle. Couldn't we say this about circus freaks as well? "They're poking that bearded woman with a stick!" "Oh yes, but she makes $30 an hour!" So there is still going to be a line drawn about what is acceptable at some point or another.

It's ok to be pissed off at the world in general; it's less ok to be pissed off at a specific group. Doesn't really matter if this pissed-offness manifests itself in games about killing ppl or about jumping on the heads of robots and turning them into cute wivvle animals, does it? Or are ppl who play Sonic The Hedgehog better human beings than those who play GTA? (in that case- I've always preferred Sonic. Get thee out of my sight, murderous GTA-loving scum!)

What about if you actually do it? Hmm... it's a puzzler.

Hahaha, hate crime lesligation to thread!

I don't agree with the supposition that media and public attitude has zero affect on individual actions either.

I agree that a line is going to be drawn at some point - but that line is between consensual participation (both the women and the marks, in this example) and unconsensual participation (if she were forced into the job or if the marks were forced to attend the show). I will not accept arbitrary lines based on what I or someone else feels is socially acceptable and what is not. So long as everyone wants to do it, and no one is being harmed, then go for it.

i don't doubt at all that many of the actors involved in het porn - men and women - don't find what they are doing degrading to women. i'm sure the money and the hedonism is quite liberating. and i don't doubt that women who consume straight male porn find it liberating. but really, my issue is how the pornography is question contributes to and reinforces stereotypes about gender, stereotypes which are often harmful. i mean how many times do women have to take a submissive role in the kind of porn we are talking about? men coming in women's faces? women deepthroating men, swallowing their jism, getting spanked and told "you dirty whore" etc etc etc... Yes, for sure, in the movies, the women consent. thank goodness. but when the images are ones mostly of men calling the shots and female compliance, it is boring and it ingrains itself on peoples psyches. or perhaps its more that these gender roles are already ingrained in our psyches, and it just hurts me to see them being eroticised, not challenged, not subverted.

there are obviously power imbalances in gay porn and lesbian porn, there is dominant and submissive. but gay porn is on the margins firstly, and secondly, the gender roles are not so binary. i have enoyed gay porn, i have no issue with gay porn in itself, except perhaps where other factors come into play such as race, lookism blah blah.

ps, if its all just for fun and fantasy, how come you admit that its never just fantasy, that when its repeated often enough it DOES get internalized: but the more I thought about it, the more I realized that I couldn't, day in and day out, say such things - at some point I'd likely come to believe what I was saying, and I don't think I'd like that person I would become.
or have i misunderstood? please clarify!

> I don't think that I do agree with the idea that porn is purely fantasy.

Then what is it? I see it as being a form of entertainment. These are actors, being paid for their time, to do certain things. I doubt that much of it (with the exception of some of the amature works) would be considered to be a documentary/true. I don't mean to sound argumentative, I just do not understand how else one might view porn. Please elaborate (and no, that wasn't meant to sound snotty or anything - I am honestly curious).

>I don't agree with the supposition that media and public attitude has zero affect on individual actions either.

I don't think that I said media and public attitude has zero affect on individual actions - that would be an absurd conculsion. After all, without public condemntation/norms I might be more inclined to do some things that might actually harm others. However, I believe that ultimately we are all completly responsible for our actions (with the exceptions of those people who trespass norms because of chemical imbalances).

People talk about how porn and other things should be restricted on the Internet because kids might see it. It is the responsibility of each parent, who made a commitment when they chose to bring a child into this world, to raise that child as they see fit. However, they also have an obligation to explain things to that child, and to watch over that child and explain situations to them. Should kids have access to porn? I don't think so. But if they should find some, then their parent should be there to explain what they have seen. It's like when people get mad at TV shows because they teach the wrong things to kids. What is a child doing watching TV on their own in the first place? If they're young enough to not be able to understand and cope with what they are seeing, then they shouldn't be watching it alone. The same goes for books, computer games, and so forth. It's about dialogue and teaching the child about the different things in the world, not about sheltering them from everything, so that when they finally are allowed out into the world they are not thrown for a loop because they haven't been taught what is out there and how to cope with it.

In regards to violence in computer games, I feel the same way - if a child is going to play such a game, then the parent needs to be there to provide the structure and information and to teach the difference between fantasy and reality. And if a child is too young to understand the difference, then they're too young to play the game.

You just drew a line. Now you have to define "harm."

And if its just consent then say goodbye to minimum wage and all sorts of labor laws. And (to swing back into other threads) are we dismissing costs (or harm) to society? The screamingly obvious being healthcare. Or, as has been discussed here, the effect of the consentual act being approved has on the inconsensual crime i.e. porn being tied to rape.

As far as the oral sex that women perform in these movies, I fail to see why that is perpetuating a gender stereotype and why it is that the woman is somehow submissive in that role - she has her teeth pretty damn close to his vulnerable parts - I'd think that she was very much in power. Now, if you're talking about some woman being held down and "forced" into performing oral sex, then I can see the problem with the stereotypes - but even then she can bite.

In regards to the infamous (and, at least in my mind, rather pathetic "money shots") where the semen goes around her neck or over her ass, and so forth, I don't see where that is making her submissive, either - it is not an image that appeals, to me, but what about the woman sitting on the man's face and covering him with her fluids? The sad fact is that the men get paid for those cum shots (they've yet to figure-out how to give "proof" that the woman has climaxed) - and that sticky stuff has to go somewhere. I just don't view it as being demeaning, is what I am trying to say.

About the "Suck it bitch!" and other ever-so-tasteless lines the men are told to utter, the women also get to do the "oh, you big stud," and "oh, you're so hard" (especially funny when he can't hold an erection) - giving the men some encouragement that is needed for them to get off, near as I can tell. The name-calling, while not my cup of tea, I think is balanced by the males paying compliments - "Oh, that feels so good," "Oh, yeah baby - you're making me feel so good," "you taste so perfect,"....well, you get the idea.

You talk about women "having" to take the submissive role in porn. I think that the women choose to take those roles. If they don't want to do it, they can ask for a re-write, or find another film. Also, some women actually prefer the submissive role, just as some males prefer the submissive role (and I think that we'd see many more female-in-power flicks if there wasn't such a societal taboo against men wanting to be in a sexually submissive role).

In response to your postscript )which I will cut and paste here, though I've yet to figure-out the darned italics things...
> ps, if its all just for fun and fantasy, how come you admit that its never just fantasy, that when its repeated often enough it DOES get internalized: but the more I thought about it, the more I realized that I couldn't, day in and day out, say such things - at some point I'd likely come to believe what I was saying, and I don't think I'd like that person I would become.
or have i misunderstood? please clarify!

When I was speaking about not being able to be degrading, day in and day out, because it would be internalized, I was referring to a situation where *I* would be saying these things, the person I would be saying them to would be a real person, at my feet, and he would be realy believing what I was saying. And for myself, like any repeated mantra, it does become, eventually internalized.

However, with porn, I think of it as being people who are acting out set fantasies. They are not real to me - not the laughable faux situations, not the bodies of the actors/actresses, not the dialogue, not the rooms. It's the visualization of some person's fantasy, nothing more. I don't think I have ever seen a porn film where I ever forgot that I was watching something poorly executed, poorly recorded, and poorly acted. There's a big difference between what I see in a film and what I see in real life.

On a slightly different note, I would be curious to hear from some of the males about whether they feel that the rather "above-average" penis' in male het porn create a standard that they feel they need to live up to. Also, why does so much male het porn concentrate on penis shots? Seems to me that it's not quite as het as some might promote it to be.

I hope I clarified things a bit - if not, please ask more - I enjoy having to think of how to communicate my thoughts - kinda helps me get things organized in my own mind.

This is a cut-and-paste from bnw's post - again, sorry about the lack of the darn italics.

>>and no one is being harmed

>You just drew a line. Now you have to define "harm."

Harm - to do something which causes someone physical or mental pain, damage, or to somehow "wrong" someone.

I do not see porn as being harmful - if someone knows that they are going to be "harmed" by watching porn (disturbed, angered, disgusted, etc.) then they do not need to watch it (same for regular movies and television shows - the consumer has the power). I feel the same is true for those people who participate in making porn. If someone is forced, against their will to make porn, then yes, they are being harmed. If someone feels that they are being degraded by taking a come shot in the face, then they can refuse to do such a shot.

>And if its just consent then say goodbye to minimum wage and all sorts of labor laws. And (to swing back into other threads) are we dismissing costs (or harm) to society? The screamingly obvious being healthcare. Or, as has been discussed here, the effect of the consentual act being approved has on the inconsensual crime i.e. porn being tied to rape.

I am afraid that I don't follow your argument here, regarding saying goodbye to minimum wage, please clarify for me, thanks. Same for the comment about healthcare.

I do not see what costs/harm porn is doing to society. I see it as giving some people a sexual outlet or sexual assist (those who get off on making it and those who get off on viewing it) and that it is therefore a positive aspect (though, if it becomes an addiction then we're off into some other discussion). Also, I do not see the correlation between pornography (regardless of how much the particular film might be viewed as subjugating women) and violent crimes such as rape. Any person who is going to go and be violent against another human being, based on something they have viewed or have heard, is going to be violent, period, regardless of what stimulus they are exposed to. There's that whole thing about Columbine and the shooters having practiced shooting moving targets playing something like "Doom." Those kids would have found another way to get target practice, with bb guns or whatever, if they were looking for it. And they would have done the shooting regardless - it was what they wanted to do.

But back to the topic - it has been my understanding that those cultures/societies where there is legalized prostitution there is a lessening of rape and sexual violence against children. If you have different statistics, please provide them and I'll look forward to reading them tomorrow.

the context of me saying this was the pervasiveness of the roles, in porn, and in society in general. of course none of this stuff: the cum shots, etc, are offensive, out of that context. even when, in het male-oreinted porn, a woman is straddling a mans face (and how often does that really happen?), the stuff is still aimed at, and predominantly consumed by, men. i can't help but see the inclusion of such events as a token gesture, a nod to the fact that, yes, women enjoy sex too. but a token gesture none-the-less, and one that has changed pretty much nothing about the reception and consumption of such porn.

In regards to the infamous (and, at least in my mind, rather pathetic "money shots") where the semen goes around her neck or over her ass, and so forth, I don't see where that is making her submissive, either

it is, in the sense that even if the cum isn't going inside her, she is still the receptacle of it.

the women also get to do the "oh, you big stud," and "oh, you're so hard"

this is hardly a counterexample, as it is socially acceptable for men to be studs. but being called a bitch or a whore has a whole history of policing the gender of women. it is sexist to call a woman a bitch or a whore, just for engaging in and enjoying the act of sex, or for anything that is outside of what women, according to society, are supposed to act like.

You talk about women "having" to take the submissive role in porn. I think that the women choose to take those roles. If they don't want to do it, they can ask for a re-write, or find another film.

its not that simple. is porn unionised? if not, these women wouldn't have a show in hell of getting a rewrite. find another film? one which doesn't pay as well!

However, with porn, I think of it as being people who are acting out set fantasies...It's the visualization of some person's fantasy, nothing more.

Since when were people's fantasies outside of societal norms, politics, culture?

Also, why does so much male het porn concentrate on penis shots? Seems to me that it's not quite as het as some might promote it to be.

that doesn't make it sexually subversive, although it may provide a source of interest for those who want to see it as sexually subversive. but they are still in the minority. the penis is concentrated on, because that is the point of identification for the supposed viewer, largely not the object of desire. its about phallocentrism.

Simple answer in American terms -- no, not on the performing level at least when it comes to the high-end producers like Vivid Video etc, not to mention many of the smaller outfits. There was a fairly harsh (and deservedly so) article recently via the LA Times that looked at the porn industry strictly in terms of something as basic but as crucial as health oversight for the performers, specifically STDs. The results were fundamentally and thoroughly depressing, a combination of lack of state funding for healthcare, an industry that rubberstamps examinations and the like as a legal fig leaf, intense pressure on performers to act without safety precautions (ie, condoms) and more so besides. In combination with some of the personal stories told from the performers about general work conditions anyway, the result was something, were we all working in an equivalent situation in our respective careers, we would have been long since protesting violently. That attempts to unionize performers have basically gone nowhere shows you who holds the cards and plays them in that industry.

Porn stars have above average dicks? I hadn't noticed.

Also, my friend once coined (i think) "active engulfment" as the notion of the man afraid of a vagina swallowing up his dick and pointed out that if we were in a culture where women were running the show this would be quite terrifying and a symbol of submission.

I do think that there's more male than female dominant porn around, but there's plenty of videos about dominatrixes etc. and perhaps the PROPORTIONS reflect something in society, rather than the existance of 1 vs. the other.

This is also why Sterling's point is sort of a good one: surely part of why porn is able to get extremely antisocial is the fact that it's considered antisocial already, and can sort of claim it as some artistic vanguard to offers something more. Also it's often said that porn, like sex, can have addictive qualities to some people, and I'm sure there's some sort of tolerance that develops, surely in some cases a desire to surprise oneself with ever-more-amazingly antisocial material.

Di, I'm not sure what you mean about the thread title: I called it "porn chic" because the primary sort of porn chic I'm thinking of revolves around het male porn, which is surely still most porn created. I see women more involved in a different but surely related kind of porn chic, which is artier and more self-exploratory, but I think that's maybe a different cultural phenomenon: we can discuss that here, for sure, it just wasn't entirely what I originally had in mind. (Also don't get too worried about the questions being pointed your way -- some of them are very legitimate ones to consider and not at all an advance flurry for a "you're a big Dworkinite" attack!)

Part of what needs to be untangled here is quite how the feedback loop works: it's a bit disingenuous to say that even pornography that's specifically about degrading women is solely creating or reinforcing that impulse in people, when in fact there must be an element of its simply responding to or embodying things already in the minds of the consumers.

thats why i used the words "contributing to" and "reinforcing". it implies just that.

http://www.improvisation.ws/mb/tpcs.html

But reinforcing gender stereotypes obviously isn't limited to porn, as it occurs in commercials on broadcast TV as well, so this argument needs to be refined or broadened, depending.

Minimum wage = society stepping in and saying that just because an employee will work for 50 cents an hour doesn't mean that's all you can pay them.

Healthcare is an example of how one person's actions/choices effect socitey via fiscal harm. This is often brought up in the legalize drugs debate i.e. if we legalize heroin, who is going to pay for the increases in treatment programs and hospital stays? Assuming some form of socialized healthcare then the costs will come down on everyone, not just those who choose to take heroin.

I am not going to claim to know any stats about tying porn to rape. But I'd wager it hasn't been convincingly proven or disproven.

I also think the issue of dominance in porn is a red herring: I don't know much about the area, but it seems to be more women than men doing the dominating. I do recognise that the gender contexts are entirely different, but to complain about an area where women are more often on top seems to be choosing the wrong target.

There's a lot wrong with the industry, and with a lot of its products, but I think it gets picked on (besides by the prudes, and that isn't what the debate here is about at all) because it is the most obvious representation, writ large, of male-female relations. I'm not sure that it's a more sexist industry or artform/entertainment than others, but it sure does make every bit of sexism and misogyny blindingly clear.

1. Woman gets felt up by man (or men)
2. Woman sucks mans penis (is often 'forced' to) (if there are multiple women, they will each do so)
3. Woman gets fucked in the vagina (if there are multiple women, they will each do so. If there are multiple men, they will each screw the woman/women, potentially simultaneously)
4. Each man will ejaculate into/onto the woman/women's mouth/face/breasts.
5. Woman/women smile for camera as penises go limp.

It does appear to me that women are degraded, or reduced, by this kind of porn. The penis is given a kind of godlike reverence by the performers and camera operators, while the women are treated like "toilets" (a phrase that is often used).

I've only really seen soft porn and like Martin says it often (even usually) involves sexually voracious women seducing men.

And I thought hardcore porn usually involves them going at it like rabbits with no story at all?

See, this is what Tom was saying. You never hear about Big Welsh Monster Cocks.

And another thing - was watching a documentary the other month about Manga, and they did a bit about manga poen (hentai is it?). The common lazy argument about 'as long as the participants are doing it freely it's ok' (sidestepping for a moment the obv. problems with said argument) doesn't apply here as they are created images. But it was nasty shit which worked on the level of woman as uber-passive vehicle, and although there were no women, children or animals harmed in the production, that doesn't absolve it, as it's a culutral intervention as it were, and one which I do like.

I could probably have expressed this much better, but fuck it. The ultimate point is that I can't help but think that consumers of such images are going to find their real life interactions with women affected by this, and that's a Bad Thing^(tm).

Ultimately though, I don't make these comments with any sociological/psychological evidence to hand; it's just observing the way in which from the mid 90s onwards, the language of sex has become coarser and sexual relations just seem to have been...well, degraded if that's the right word.

Boredom != discomfort. Also, are we taking into account the fact that the moment we're seeing on camera might be the 57th minute that the poor woman has been sucking on that penis, resulting in jaw pain?

I think at this point it would be good to distiguish between "raincoater" porn movies and the more mainstream type. The more mainstream movies would be ones made by companies like Vivid, and feature actually plots, production values and pretty tame sex (nothing worse than an occasional anal or so). The "raincoater" stuff is much harder. There is no plot, and they all follow Andrew's "formula" except replace "3. Woman gets fucked in the vagina" with "3. Skip vaginal sex, go straight to the ass". Also they do other pretty nasty degrading things depending on their mood. So, your imprsssion of pr0n will vary depending on what exactly you have seen....

But obviously this does not apply to animations or erotic literature, right? I don't think it's unreasonable to expect anyone to know that in real life horned demons don't rape twelve year old girls and little boys don't have sex with their animal friends.

I suppose you could argue that sex has been such a taboo subject in certain situations for so long that media depictions really are all the information that some people receive on the subject and so have a greater affect than, say, a violent video game would. But I think that there is a problem with linking people's fantasies to their actions. You give people too little credit when you assume that they are that easily influenced and have so little self control.

i'm reviving this great thread by writing in this box and hitting "submit post".

blimey, every post is tl;dr

I was hired to write an article about a superhero themed porn shoot recently and had to back out

and I mean I know people who are sex workers, but don't know them in the context of people who have sex for money, just as people

later on they release books or write articles about having sex with people for money on the reg and I'm like oh

Was reading a review of an album by Master Musicians of Bukkake the other day and I giggled

I guess when I got the job I was like well this would be "interesting" I guess but then I was like man it'll prob just be really awkward idk

xpost yeah, I saw that as well. The review made no reference (or teh funnie) at all..

i wonder what serious thread 2 was?

Serious Thread #2: Forced Democracy

oh yes. the "search" function.

Serious Thread #3: I don't need this pressure on

Does anyone else feel outraged that there are no numbered series of Frivolous Threads?

if you look in the url its right after threadid=

Frivolous Thread Revival #1

Dave Boyle should be promoted to a significant executive post for his sensible and thoughtful contribution to this internet discussion.

:/